FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 53 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cr-0 00 76 -TJC -J RK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us KEITH LARON BROOKS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Keit h Lar on Bro ok s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forbe in g afel onin po ss es si on of a fi rearm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e). Onap pe al , Bro ok srai se s fi ve arg um en ts : (1 ) su ffi ci en t ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort t he jury’ s v erd ic t

th athe un la wfu ll y

po ss es se d afir earm ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin adm it ti ng (a) Eri k B erg er’s t es ti m on y th atBro ok s p rev io us ly pos se ss eda fi rearm an d (b ) Bro ok s’s 2 00 3 fe lo ny con vi ct io n fo r co cai ne di st rib ut io n, p ur su an t t o Fed .R.Evi d. 4 04 (b ); ( 3) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o s ev er h is dru g c ou ntfro m hi s fi rearm

co un t; (4) th e d is tri ctco urt erred in de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s; an d (5 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o c om

pe l t he id en ti ty of a n on -te st ifyin g c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t (“ CI”) . Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm . I. Fi rs t, Br oo ks co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t s ho w th athe ha d a ctua l orco ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e fi rearm be cau se itfai le d t o s ho w th athe ha d own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e ro om in whi ch off

ic ers fou ndth e fir earm . He arg ue s t ha t m ere p res en ce i s i ns uf fic ie ntwher e, as he re, the re was no ot he r in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e, es pe ci al ly whe re the jury fo un d t ha t Br oo ks di d n ot ha ve co nt ro l o ve r th e sh ot gu n s he ll , th e b ul le ts , or t he dru gs fou ndin th e sa m e ro om as t he fir earm . W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er the re i s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort a ju ry ’s ver di ctin a cri m in al tri al , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t 2fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t, an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bec kl es , 56 5 F .3d83 2, 8 40 (11 th Ci r.), cer t den ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 72 (20 09 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce wi ll be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on if areas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id . To es tabl is h avi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), th e g ov ern m en t m us t pr ov e th ree e le m en ts : (1 ) th atth e d efen da ntwas aco nv ic te d fe lo n, (2 ) th atth e de fen da ntwas i n kno win g p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm , and(3) th atth e fi rearm was i n oraffe ct in g i nt ers ta te co m m erce . Id

. at84 1. Here , Bro ok s co nt es ts on ly the se co ndele m en t –th athe di d kno win gl y po ss es se d t he fir earm .

“ The go ve rn m en t n eedno t p ro ve actua l p os se ss io n i n o rd er t o e st ab li sh kn owi ng po ss es si on ; i t n eedon ly sho w con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n t hr ou gh di rector ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n ex is ts when th e d efen dantex erci se s o wne rs hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e it em orha s t he po wer an d i nt en t t o e xe rci se do m in io n o r co nt ro l.” Id. Howev er, “ a de fen da nt ’s m ere p res en ce i n t he areaof [ anob ject] or a waren es s o f it s l oc at io n i s no t s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh po ss es si on .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Here, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o s ho w th atBro ok s h addo m in io n 3orco nt ro l o ve r th e b edro om in whi choff

ic ers fou ndth e fi rearm , andth us , th athe kn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e fi rearm . The g ov ern m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th at (1 ) Bro ok s was at t he tra il er o n J un e 3 0, 2 00 8, J an ua ry 4, 2 00 9, an d o n J an ua ry

16 , 20 09 ; (2 ) whe n o ffi cers ex ecu te d t he sea rchwarran t, Br oo ks ranba ckin to th e ho us e an d h ead edto wardth e ro om with t he fir earm

wher e o ffi cers de ta in edhi m ; (3 ) Ber ge r wen t t o t he tra il er m ul ti pl e ti m es to bu y

crac k c oc ai ne fro m

Bro ok s; (4) of fic ers di sc ov eredBro ok s’s Fl or id a ID car d a s wel l as hi s m ai l i n the roo m co nt ai ni ng th e fi rearm ; (5 ) Bro ok s’s m ot he r to ldoff ic ers at t he sce ne th atBro ok s li ve d i n the ba ckbe dr oo m ; an d (6 ) Ber ge r ha d s een Bro ok s wi th a gu n b efo re. Fu rth er, i n t ap edco nv ers at io ns fro m jail , Bro ok s as ke d p eo pl e to ge t h is pro pe rty fro m th e tr ai le r, in cl ud in g B ro ok s’s t oo ls an d a n am pl ifi er und er h is be d a s wel l as a fi sh tan k, a g ril l, an d s pe ak ers . It i s s uf fic ie nt ly clearth atBro ok s ex erci se d co nt ro l o ve r th e it em s l oc at edin th e b ackbe dr oo m , in cl ud in g t he fir earm . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 7 F .3d10 82 , 10 91 -9 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) (ho ld in g t ha t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rte d fi rearm co nv ic ti onwher e o ffi cers fou ndfir earm s, amm un it io n, d ru g p arap he rn al ia , cas h, an d d efen dant ’s Flo rid a id en ti fic at io n c ard an d p ris on id en ti fic at io n c ardin be dr oo m of d efen da nt ’s m ot he r’s ho us e). Fi na ll y , Bro ok s’s co nt en ti on th atth e in su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce i s de m on st rat edby inc on si st en t ju ry ve rd ic ts is witho utm eri t. Itis well set tl edth at 4juri es are en ti tl edto reac h c om pr om is es an d t ha t “ co ns is te nc y in th e v erd ic t i s n ot ne ces sa ry .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Od om , 25 2 F .3d12 89 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Inc on si st en t v erd ic ts do no t d efea t a d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n, an d “ su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he -ev id en ce re vi ew in vo lv es ass es sm en t b y th e co urts of whe th er the ev id en ce ad du cedat tria l co ul d s up po rt any rati on al de te rm in at io n o f gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t, a re vi ew th atis in de pe nd en t o f th e jury’ s de te rm in at io n t ha t ev id en ce o n a no th er co un t was in su ffi ci en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Vea l , 15 3 F .3d12 33 , 12 52 -5 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Here, th e jury spe ci fic al ly fou ndth atBro ok s kno win gl y po ss es se d t he fir earm

an d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce s up po rts th is de te rm in at io n. II. Seco nd , Bro ok s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin adm it ti ng (a) Eri k Berg er’s t es ti m on y

th atBro ok s p rev io us ly pos se ss eda fi rearm an d (b ) Bro ok s’s 20 03 fel on y

co nv ic ti on forco cai ne di st rib ut io n, p ur su an t t o F ed .R.Evi d. 4 04 (b ). W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to adm it ev id en ce p ur su an t t o R

ul e 4 04 (b ). Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 7 F .3d10 82 , 10 90 -9 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . W e ap pl y a th ree- pa rt t es t t o d et erm in e whe th er ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f pr io r ba d a ct s i s ad m is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) :

5Fi rs t, th e ev id en ce m us t b e rel ev an t t o a n i ss ue ot he r th an t h e de fen da nt ’s ch arac te r; Seco nd , th e act m us t b e es tabl is he d by su ffi ci en t pr oo f to pe rm it a jury fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt co m

m it te d th e ex tri ns ic act ; [an d] Thi rd , th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce m us t no t be subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by it s un du e pr ejud ic e, an d th e ev id en ce m us t m eetth e o th er re qu ire m en ts of Rul e 4 03 . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma tthe ws , 43 1 F .3d12 96 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ To d et erm in e whe th er the ev id en ce i s m or e p ro ba ti ve th anpre jud ic ia l, a d is tri ctco urt m us t en ga ge in a co m

m on sen se ass es sm en t o f al l t he cir cum st an ces su rro un di ng th e ex tri ns ic off

en se , in cl ud in g p ro se cu to ria l n eed , ov eral l s im il ari ty between th e ex tri ns ic actan d t he ch arg edoff en se , as wel l as tem

po ral rem ot en es s.” Bro wn , 58 7 F .3dat 1 09 1 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Alth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt h as a gr eat de gr ee o f di sc ret io n i n wei gh in g p ro ba ti ve va lu e an d p reju di ce u nd er Ru le 40 3, we ha ve “ al so reco gn iz edth atRu le 40 3 i s an ex tra or di na ry rem edy whi ch th e d is tri ct co urt s ho ul d i nv ok e sp ari ng ly, an d t he ba la nc e . . . sho ul d b e st ru ckinfav or of ad m is si bi li ty.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Do dd s , 34 7 F .3d89 3, 8 97 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Berg er’s Tes ti m on y The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng Berg er’s te st im on y . By

pl ead in g n otgu il ty andpre se nt in g am ere p res en ce d efen se , Bro ok s pl acedhi s i nt en t s qu arel y at i ss ue . The g ov ern m en t h adth e b ur de n o f pr ov in g

6kn owi ng po ss es si onof afir earm , andto do so , itso ug htadm is si on of e vi de nc e

th atBro ok s h adkn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm at a no th er re cen t t im e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jerni

ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p erm it ti ng adm is si on of de fen da nt ’s pri orfel onin po ss es si on of f ire arm co nv ic ti on to pro ve “ kn owi ng po ss es si on of afir earm ” el em en t o f ch arg edoff en se ). Furth er, the pro ba ti ve va lu e of Berg er’s t es ti m on y

ou twei gh edan y

pre jud ic ia l ef

fectitm ig htha ve ha d. Bro ok s’s p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm at t he same trai le r whe re o ffi cers on ly m on th s la te r di sc ov ereda fi rearm is pro ba ti ve th atBro ok s kno win gl y po ss es se d t he fir earm . Se e Bro wn , 58 7 F .3dat 1 09 1. Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se rel ie d p rimaril y

on cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, the go ve rn m en t n eed edBerg er’s te st im on y . Se e id. Bro ok s’s 2 00 3 c on vi ct io n The di stric t co urt al so di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng Bro ok s’s 20 03 dru g c on vi ct io n, as we ha ve he ldth at“ [e]vi de nc e o f pr io r drug de al in gs is hi gh ly pro ba ti ve of i nt en t t o d is tri bu te a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca rden as , 89 5 F .2d13 38 , 13 44 (11 thCir . 19 90 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . This is es pe ci al ly true wher e, as he re, the go ve rn m en t n eed edth e ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th e de fen da nt ’s in te nt . Se e id. at 1 34 3- 44 . Furt he r, th e two off en se s wer e subs ta nt ia ll y

si m il ar, an d wh il e si x years s ep arat edth e two off en se s, t hi s d oe s n ot 7di m in is h t he ev id en ce’s p ro ba ti ve va lu e b ecau se Bro ok s was in pri so n fo r th e

m ajor it y of t hi s t im e. Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce’s p ro ba ti ve va lu e o ut weig he d a ny pr ejud ic e th atth e ev id en ce m ig htha ve ha d. III. Bro ok s co nt en ds th atby notsev eri ng hi s t wo co un ts , th e d is tri ctco urt pr ejud ic edhi m , as s ho wn b y it s d ead lo ckonth e dru g c ou nt . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l of a m ot io n t o s ev er fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha mmon d , 78 1 F .2d 15 36 , 15 39 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). W e u se a two -s te p a na lysis to de te rm in e whe th er se pa rat e ch arg es were p ro pe rly tri edat t he same tim e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Wal se r , 3 F.3 d 3 80 , 38 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Firs t, the go ve rn m en t m us t d em on st rat e th atth e in it ia l jo in de r of

off en se s was pro pe r un de r Fed .R.Cri m .P. 8(a ). Id. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 8( a) p erm it s t he joi nd er o f of fen se s “ if t he off

en se s ch arg ed. . . are o f th e sa m e o r si m il ar ch arac te r, orare b as edonth e sa m e actor tran sa ct io n, o r are co nn ect ed wit h o r co ns ti tu te pa rts of aco m m on sch em e o r pl an .” Bro ok s d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e in it ia l jo in de r was pro pe r. The fi rearm co un t was ba se d o n t he same act o r tra ns act io n a s t he dru g c ha rg e, be cau se th e weap on an d d ru gs were fo un d a t t he sa m e ti m e an d the same pla ce as th e dru gs . Se eFed .R.Cri m .P. 8(a ). Seco nd , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n by den y in g t he m ot io n t o s ev er. W al se r , 3 F.3 d a t 3 85 . Fed .R.Cri m .P. 14 pe rm it s 8rel ie f fro m

pre jud ic ia l jo in de r, in cl ud in g s ev eran ce o f co un ts , “ if t he joi nd er o f of fen se s . . . in anin di ct m en t . . . app ears to pre jud ic e a d efen da nt .” W e, ho wev er,

“ wil l n otrev ers e th e d en ia l o f a s ev eran ce m ot io n abs en t a c le ar ab us e o f di sc ret io n re su lt in g i n c om pe ll in g p reju di ce ag ai ns t wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt co ul d of fer n o p ro te ct io n.” W

al se r , 3 F.3 d a t 3 85 . “ [M]ore th anso m e p reju di ce m us t b e sh own ; t he ap pe ll an t m

us t d em on st rat e th athe rece iv edanun fai r tr ia l an d s uf fere d co m pe ll in g p reju di ce.” Id

. at 3 86 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ Thi s i s a h eav y bu rd en , an d o ne whi ch m ere c on cl us ory all eg at io ns can no t ca rry .” Id . (quo ta ti on om it te d) .

“ The tes t fo r as se ss in g c om pe ll in g p reju di ce i s wh ethe r un de r al l t he ci rcu m st an ces of apa rti cu la r cas e itis withi n t he cap aci ty of juro rs to fol lo w a co urt’s l im it in g i ns tru ct io ns an d app rai se th e in de pe nd en t ev id en ce ag ai ns t a de fen da ntso le ly on tha t d efen da nt ’s own act s, s ta te m en ts , andco nduc t i n re la ti on to th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t an d re nd er a fa ir a ndim parti al ve rd ic t.” Id. at 3 86 -8 7. Se ve ran ce i s n otrequi redwhen th e p os si bl e p reju di ce m ay be curedth ro ug h acau ti on ary in st ru ct io n. Id. at 3 87 . Abs en t ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary, w e p res um e th ata jury w as ab le to fol lo w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i ns tru ct io ns an d e va lu at e th e ev id en ce o n e ach co un t i nd ep en de nt ly. Se e id. Here, Br oo ks ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t h e su ffer edco m pe ll in g p reju di ce fr om th e joi nd er o f Co un ts One a ndTwo. The f actth atth e jury fail edto reac h ave rd ic t 9on th e dru g c ou ntan d fo un d B ro ok s g ui lt y of t he fel on -in -p os se ss io n c harg e as to th e fi rearm

bu t n otth e amm

un it io n d em on st rat es th atth e jury con si de redeach co un t s ep arat el y . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Y ork, 42 8 F .3d13 25 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atdi stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g m ot io n t o s ev er whe re co urt i ns tru ct edjury to co ns id er ea ch co un t s ep arat el y an d wh ere “ th e jury acqui tt ed[th e d efen da nt ] on two of t he th irt een co un ts , evi nc in g t ha t i t co ns id ered each co un t s ep arat el y .”). Fu rth er, ev enBro ok s co nc ed es th atif t he fir earm co un t was tri edsep arat el y

th e jury woul d h av e kno wn t ha t h e was a co nv ic te d fe lo n. Thu s, Br oo ks ha s n otcarr ie d h is he av y bu rd enof s ho win g c om

pe ll in g p reju di ce an d a n u nf

ai r tr ia l. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m ita cl ear abu se of di sc ret io n b y

de nyin g B ro ok s’s m ot io n t o s ev er. IV. Nex t, Br oo ks rai se s v ari ou s ar gu m en ts rel at edto th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Pu rs ua ntto Fed .R.Cri m .P. 59 (b )(2 ), whi ch be cam e effe ct iv e in 20 05 , a de fen da nt ’s fai lu re t o fi le sp eci fic writ te n o bjec ti on s t o a m ag is tra te ’s reco m

m en da ti on s wi th in ten da y s (n ow am en de d t o fo urte enday s) aft er b ei ng serve d wi th th e rec omm en da ti on , or b y so m e o th er d at e se t b y

th e co urt, co ns ti tu te s a wa iv er o f hi s ri gh t t o app el la te rev ie w. Bec au se Bro ok s d idno t fi le ob jecti on s t o the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d 10reco m

m en da ti on , we con cl ud e th athe waiv edap pe ll at e rev ie w of the de ni al of h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s. V. Bro ok s co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n b ecau se he ne ed edto co nf

ro ntth e CI t o c ha ll en ge th e se arch warran t. Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w foranab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng th atth e g ov ern m en t n eedno t d is cl os e th e id en ti ty of a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu ti erre

z , 93 1 F .2d14 82 , 14 90 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Bu t, “ [t]he law is set tl edth atap pe ll at e co urts are wi th ou t ju ris di ct io n t o h ear app eal s d ire ct ly from fed eral m ag is tra te s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch ul tz , 56 5 F .3d13 53 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Ren fr o , 62 0 F .2d49 7, 5 00 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) ). In Ren fr o , a m ag is tra te jud ge act in g u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. 6 36 (b )(1 )(A) i ss ue d arul in g ag ai ns t t he de fen da nton a pr etria l d is co ve ry m ot io n. Sc hu lt

z , 56 5 F .3dat 1 35 9. W e h el d t ha t we l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rul in g be cau se th e d efen da ntha d n otpro m pt ly app eal editto th e d is tri ctco urt. Id. Here, b ecau se Bro ok s n ev er ap pe al edth e m ag is tra te ’s rul in g d en y in g h is m ot io n t o c om

pe l t he CI’s id en ti ty, we la ckjuri sd ic ti on to no w con si de r th e m eri ts of th is ho ld in g. Se e S

ch ul tz , 56 5 F .3dat 1 35 9. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm .

11AFFIRMED. 1

Br ooks’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 1 12